AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 253 wordsHeard Mr. Kumar Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.
Pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2020, respondent nos. 3 and 4 represented by Mr. Rupesh Singh, who submits that in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4, it has been stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted vide memo no. 735 dated 20.06.2020 shall consider the eligibility criteria and candidature of all Grade IV and Grade III regular employees of the respondent-Corporation including the petitioners for grant of promotion/ACP/MACP.
In view of this statement, the prayer made in the writ petition has been taken care of by the respondents and in that view of the matter, this writ petition has become infructuous. It is expected that the case of the petitioners will be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee within four months. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, no direction is required to be given to the respondents as the respondents have already taken care of to consider the case of the petitioners within aforesaid period.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.
